Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 15:16, 3 May 2024

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 17:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Will start review soon. Looks interesting! MathewTownsend (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

comments

• there is a {{cn}} tag. - I'm not sure a citation is needed there.

• Fixed. It at one point had a reference, but with all of the recent edits it had been separated. - DB

• it would be helpful to have a map for all these places in England.

• Done, I think. The map is rather blurry at this small size, but I suppose people can click on it for a bigger image. I don't really want to make it any bigger in the article itself, because it already takes up a fairly good size area (at least on the computer I'm using right now). - DB

• why is the Large Black not suitable for "intensive farming"?

• So far I have not come across a source that specifically spells out why they are not suitable for intensive farming. Basically, their size and foraging abilities make them much better suited to living outdoors and gaining their nutrition from grasses, roots, etc., while other breeds fare much better being indoors 24/7 and being fed high-protein grain diets - the latter are the breeds used for intensive farming. However, I need to find a source that actually says this to be able to put it in the article :) I'll keep looking, however. - DB

• why are such large ears favored? - (just curious)

• One source mentions that they protect the face while foraging and rooting, which would tie into them being a good pasture-raised pig. I've added this. - DB

• "The first American imports were in the 1920s, but the population dwindled to the point where imports were again necessary in 1985." - was the Large Black thriving in America? Wouldn't the breed change in America so that importing them from American would change the breed in Britain?

• These were exports from Britain to the US, not the other way around. I've tweaked the wording to better reflect that. I plan to add some to the history of the Large Black in the US if I can find the proper sourcing for it - probably later today or tomorrow, though. - DB

• "The Large Black is a long, deep-bodied pig, well known for its hardiness and suitability for extensive farming" - why?

• Added a bit - let me know if more is needed. - DB

• "It is the only pig breed in Britain to be all black, and this trait helps protect the pig from sunburn in sunny climates." - does Britain have enough sunny climates that this would be an issue? I thought not but I could be wrong.

• This is mentioned in pretty much all of the sources, so apparently so. I would say that it probably also helped the breed when it was introduced to Australia and the sunny parts of the US. - DB

• "the Large Black was used mainly for meat production, especially bacon. The meat from the Large Black is known for its quality and flavour, but for pork production it was often crossed with the Yorkshire and Middle White pigs" - my ignorance - isn't bacon pork? And I don't understand what this bit is trying to say.

• Bacon is a type of pork (the result of smoking cuts of meat, generally from the back, sides or belly), but there are also other types of pork - ribs, porkchops, etc. So, while all types of pork products can be made from the Large Black, it was used especially for the production of bacon. I tweaked the last clause a bit (as well as the succeeding clause, which helps to make this part understandable). Please let me know if it's better now; or, if not, could you give me some more detail on what exactly you don't understand about it? - DB

• With so many breeds of black pigs in the world, is the title for this article right? No (British pig) or whatever?

• In the research that I have done, I have not found another breed called the "Large Black". There are other breeds of black pigs, and some of them are large, but they are called by other names - "Russian Black" or what have you. So, in my opinion, this is the correct title. - DB

• An interesting article on a subject I have never thought about!

MathewTownsend (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Mathew! Dana will probably be able to answer many of your questions better than I. Briefly, in order, the little I can offer: I wasn't able to find any reliable reference to the Large Black from before 1899, but maybe Dana has and will add it in place of the cn tag; map? - pass; apparently the LB is a foraging breed that does well in extensive systems, while others do better indoors; supposedly the large ears make it docile, and easy to contain (single-strand fencing); I think the section on the history in the US needs expanding, and that on the history in Australia still needs to be written; extensive farming, see above!; yes, you have to laugh at a sun-resistant pig in England, but maybe this was a useful characteristic in South Africa, Jamaica, Australia?; the meat/bacon thing needs fixing, pigs are for pork or for bacon, both are meat; the only other Large Black pig reported to the FAO is in the Russian Federation. How much, if any, of that should be answered in the article? Obviously, despite the rubbish below, my intention is neither to confuse you nor disrupt any process. Thank you for your comments. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Important comment I have reverted the article to the last stable version by Dana boomer who nominated this article. Please review that version, I am filing an ANI on Justlettersandnumbers as this is the FOURTH time he has attempted to derail one of Dana's GA or FA articles and his harassment must stop now. Montanabw 21:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply

• Edit warring (which seems to be going on here) is a reason for a "quick fail". I'll wait to see if this problem quickly gets sorted out. If not, a "quick fail" will allow the article to be renominated when it is stable. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Can this edit war be resolved? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Mathew and thanks for reviewing. I apologize for not replying to this sooner - I was on the road all day yesterday and just got back to my computer. I see that there has been quite a bit of editing done since I last looked at the article and have not had a change to review it in detail. I agree that edit warring is grounds for a quick fail - the article was totally stable when I nominated it, but JLAN seems intent on following me around and disrupting my GA/FA articles. That, of course, is not your fault, and if, within a reasonable time, the article does not seem stable, I have no problem with you failing it. However, if you would give me some time (a day?) to work through the recent edits and try to come to a compromise on this, it would be much appreciated. Dana boomer (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply

• Certainly. The issues seem resolvable to me. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Mathew, thank you for your patience. I intend to refrain from editing here until you have made your decision; if I find the time, I may make some suggestions here, including if I can a sentence or two on the history in Australia, which is interesting and well-documented. It takes two to make an edit war, and I was one of them; whether or not I was justified will be seen in due course. I'm sorry that your edits got swept away in the tide.

Dana, I invite you to note that I edited this article before you decided to nominate it, and therefore to withdraw your unjustifiable personal remarks. I did not and do not want to disrupt a process that I know is important to you, so will make no more direct edits to the article for a day or two, or rather until Mathew has finished up here. Your last edit re-introduced "two types"; there were more than that, so the edit is not an improvement. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

JLAN, I never said you never edited the article before I nominated it - you made minor edits focused mainly on ENGVAR, which I had absolutely no problem with. Not to mention that I had made remarks/had discussions on my talk page and others about nominating this article for GA, so it was rather obvious that that was what I was planning for the article. I still believe that you pop up rather too frequently for it to be pure coincidence at articles that are at a "tipping point" (GAN, TFA, etc). However, that is a discussion for the ANI, not for here. Dana boomer (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

(outdent)Mathew, I've been working on your comments above and believe I have addressed the majority of them. I still plan to work a little bit more on expanding the history of the breed in the US and Australia - that will come probably tonight or tomorrow. Thank you for your patience. Dana boomer (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

I didn't intend to derail the GAN of this article by the revert, I was concerned that Mathew was having to review an article that had been edited too far from the pre-nom stable version. JLAN should have taken his concerns to talk instead of directly editing while under GAN, it defeated the collaborative purpose. I shall step back and allow Dana to explain what is going on, and let the ANI process deal with JLAN, who has a tendency to do this... Montanabw 23:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply

• Montanabw, it's not against GAN instructions for editors other than the nominator edit an article. What is against the instructions is to pass an article that is undergoing a revert war. I'm sorry that you don't think I have the competence or judgment to handle this review without your intervention. I suggest that you not be so dismissive of abilities of those reviewing GAs. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Update? - New Review

Hi Mathew! Just wondering if you could give an update on where you think this review is. I believe I have addressed all of your concerns above, as well as adding additional information to the history section. The article has also been stable for over a week. Any further thoughts from you would be much appreciated! Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

ok, I will do a re-review.

SECOND REVIEW*****

I'm starting over, rather than wading through all the previous.

lede

• "The Large Black, occasionally called the Devon or Cornwall Black, is a breed of domestic pig native to Great Britain, particularly Devon, Cornwall and Essex." - this doesn't seem quite true from the sources, versions of which say the Large Black originated in Somerset, Devonsire and Cornwall Black pig&f=fal while another mentions the inCorpoation of Small Black breed from East Anglia. which seems to be considered a separate breed. (this source is more vague and doesn't mention the Small Black but also doesn't rule it out.
  • So the two sources I have available (Storey's guide and Dohner's book from Yale University Press) can confirm different parts of this version of the lede. Storey's guide precisely describes the origin as Devon and Cornwall, and Dohner says primarily Cornwall and Devon, with some influence from pigs in Essex. Either way, Somerset is not mentioned in either modern book and I believe "Devonsire" is the same as Devon. To simplify, we could change the lede to: "The Large Black, occasionally called the Devon or Cornwall Black, is a breed of domestic pig that originated in Southwest England." That, we know, is 100% verifiable. Steven Walling • talk 06:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• "The Large Black combined local black pig breeds from the West Country and the East of England." - is this to enlarge upon the opening sentence? If so, why not just use it, instead of the counties. If not, then what is it intending to add?
  • If we use the lede I just suggested, then we could expand on it by changing this to mention the counties. Steven Walling • talk 06:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

history

• "The Large Black resulted from the amalgamation of black pigs from two geographically separate areas, Devon and Cornwall in the south-west of England, and Essex, Suffolk and Kent in the east - other counties added - Suffolk and Kent.
• Map is useless - even enlarged to it fullest, I can't make out the names of the counties.

• Do you have another specific map in mind to use? I looked through a bunch of maps of English counties, and this was the best one I saw, but I could have missed something. - DB

• "The pigs from eastern England, mainly Essex, were influenced by importations from China in the late 18th century, while those from Devon and Cornwall were probably more closely related to the pigs in mainland Europe, particularly France. - I can't see this in the google snippets. One source just says: "Most of the breeds of pig in Britain are descended from crosses between the long-legged, rangy, indigenous type and the small, fat pigs imported from China in the late eighteenth and early ninetenth century."[http://books.google.com/books?id=_3HZzMeMo_0C&q=china#v=snippet&q=china&f=false

• I don't know. I can't see the whole section covering this breed, but JLAN said he could and that it covered the material. I can see page 27 of the given source, but not page 28. What can you see? In any case, I've added another reference that covers the material. - DB

• "numbers declined as farmers began to favour pig breeds that would do well in intensive indoor farming" - I asked about this before - having read some sources, I now think that the issue was that Large Black was a foraging animal and of course indoor farming would be impractical.
  • I can simply write in some more detail why if you like, but the simplest explanation is twofold: 1) yes, it's a grazing/foraging breed. 2) some breeds are just tempermentally unsuited to indoor production. An pig that is selected for its drive to run around and forage, and raise its young outside, will show behavioral problems when confined in a barn all year. Steven Walling • talk 06:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• organization of history section is hard to follow

• first there is a general description, meant I guess to pertain only to Britain
• "1920s to modern times"
• "Outside of Britain" - leaps back to 1913
• "The first exports to Australia were in 1902 or 1903, with the Large Black being chosen over the Berkshire pig because of their ability to thrive in hot weather, their foraging abilities and their fecundity. By 1930, Large Blacks represented only 1 percent of Australia pig population, and were raised mainly by breeders in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania." - is this inexplicable drop due to intensive indoor farming also?

• Hmmm. I rearranged the history section to try to split it up a bit so that it wasn't just a wall of text, but I agree that this disrupted the chronological flow. Do you think it would be best to merge the "Outside of Britain" section back into the rest of the history? As to Australia, there was no "drop". There were a few of them imported in the early 1900s, along with other breeds, and although breeders kept thinking they would be the next big thing, they just...weren't. They were never more than 1% of the population, except for a brief period after WWII, as described in the article. - DB

description

• extensive farming is mentioned for the first time - imo it should be right there in the lede as this is accounts for the Large Black's use and disuse.

• Added into the lead. - DB

• (this was mentioned before) "It is the only pig breed in Britain to be all black, and this trait helps protect the pig from sunburn in sunny climates." - does Britain have sunny climates where pigs could suffer from sunburn? *the "sunburn" issue seems strange, as you are focusing on a British pig - I asked this before the revert issue - are there "sunny climates" in Britain? Plus the reference you give is talking about the Tamworthis pig: "The dark coloring is a great advantage in outdoor production because the breed does not sunburn." (google snippet)

• I think your snippet might be wrong, because my view here says "The breed's black skin is also an attribute in outdoor pork operations in many countries." However, I've added an additional ref that specifically mentions sunburn. I don't know about Britain vs. other countries, but apparently there are places in Britain sunny enough for pigs to get sunburn. The sources single this breed out as having skin pigment that would prevent it from getting sunburn, and it is a breed that developed with this color in Britain, so apparently it's a useful trait to have, especially for outdoor farming. - DB

• what page number are you referring to, as I don't see it on any of the snippets in that link?
• In any case, it's this "many countries" I'd like more info on - what were the many countries using this pig? Was its apparent decline elsewhere, e.g. Australia, South America for the same reasons? MathewTownsend (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Page 189, the page number given as a reference in the article. Replied below on the many countries thing. - DB

• I'll stop for now. But I think there should be more info on extensive farming vs indoor intensive farming - and more about the quality/characteristics of the meat. Is the breed still used for meat or is it a "rare breed" that people raise for its own sake? What are the motivation of the people seeking to preserve it, or is it preservation for the sake of preservation? Also (maybe) the article should just concentrate on the pig in Britain and then have a section for the Large Black elsewhere, as it's confusing to weave in the "else where" at point.

• I'm not sure what you mean by having a section on the Large Black elsewhere - do you mean a separate article? I don't think that's a viable option, because there's so little information on the breed in the first place. I can try weaving the information on the history of the breed outside of Britain back into the main narrative...see discussion above. I've added a bit to the conservation section. Basically, conservation organizations are trying to preserve as many breeds as possible for the sake of genetic diversity in livestock; however, this breed is also good for the increasing number of consumers who want pasture-raised pork. - DB

MathewTownsend (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• addendum - what about the use of this pig in the rest of the world - e.g. China, India, Asia in general, Mexicao, Central and South America - poorer areas of the world where extensive farming or foraging (family raising animals for their own use) is more common? MathewTownsend (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have not found information in any of the sources that give data on this breed in these areas. It is a very rare breed, and so I would be surprised in purebloods (or even crosses) exist in the majority of the areas you mentioned. If you have sources that say differently, please let me know. - DB

• I'm of course not an expert and not willing to go source hunting, but to me some of this article doesn't make sense, and perhaps suffers from systematic bias in discounting most of the world. The American Livestock Breeds Conservancy may not be a reliable source, and of course is reporting on the fate of the Large Black in the US but it does say: The breed’s popularity peaked during the 1920s, and the Large Black was exported to ­several other ­countries, including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Germany, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States. After World War II, however, the shift toward intensive husbandry of pigs led to the decline of outdoor breeds that were not competitive indoors." So what happened to these pigs in other countries? MathewTownsend (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Why would the ALBC not be a reliable source? The article currently says "By 1913, Large Black had by then spread throughout most of Britain, and had been exported to most of mainland Europe and to North and South America, Africa and Oceania." (based on a different source). I found another source that says they can still be found in South Africa (as well as Australia and the US as already discussed), but despite searching, I can find nothing on them in the other countries. This information doesn't seem to exist. I'm assuming the same thing happened to them in those countries that happened to them in Britain - producers switched to large-scale intensive indoor farming, which the breed is not suited for, and so they became rare (or possibly extinct in many countries). They also may have been mixed with native pig populations to the point that the breed became unrecognizable, or was subsumed into another breed. However, I can't find sources for any of this, so it's just conjecture. Like I said, if you have found something that I have missed in my sources, I'll be happy to add it in, but I have looked and I can't find the sources to answer the questions that you're asking. Dana boomer (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Mathew, could we please get an update on this? I think Steven and I have responded to all of your points above, although we had questions on a few... Dana boomer (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, it was off my radar. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Nice job of fixing the problems. Congratulations, MathewTownsend (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

   Wonderful! Thanks Mathew! Dana boomer (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)